It will small business will start first cause they have excuse for less money, and in thirdy countries there are lot of hiring for small task that mostly can be automated but gpt-4 has more cleared gap by faster work. Its hard to swallow, u can hire 10 juniors or 4 + gpt69.
Given that thousands of layoffs has shown everyone idea of a human worth too a company.
On the contrary. The more advantage you want to squeeze out of AI, the more people you need. AIs need a bit of hand holding and judicious application to shine. Your competition will assign more people and get more out of their AIs.
>On the contrary. The more you want to squeeze out of AI, the more people you need.
You'd be very surprised...
>AIs need a bit of hand holding and judicious application to shine.
You can have 1 person do the hand holding, and get rid of several others, as the AI still lets the single person do their work far faster... e.g. instead of a week for the person to write a program, an hour or less to get the AI to write it with appropriate prompts, and then a day or for the human to clean it up and fix any gaps...
The parent isn't wrong. Even assuming you have superhuman AI with unlimited funding, your bottleneck will be human prompting and curation. The person who assigns more workers to that sector will scale faster and eat more of the market.
It's not like e.g. a company will start selling 10x of their product just because their productivity is 10x better due to AI. So it's not like their workload with increase 10x to match.
This means a more or less same-ish workload. And if this takes them, say, X devs today (without AI), they could perhaps do it with 1/5th or 1/10th the devs plus AI tomorrow.
No need to "assign more workers to the sector". Sure, some sectors with big expansion potential might grow their business too due to automation, but for most businesses it will just be increased productivity...
Yeah, no. Firing everyone because AI can do iptables now is the sort of pipe dream you sell to a crazy one-man startup, not a pre-established business looking to save money. If you legitimately believe that people are paid for their "single threaded" potential to write software, what kind of business do you run?
You're being unnecessarily fatalist and it's making your viewpoint sound as ridiculous as the self-proclaimed 10x devs that could lay off entire software teams because they wrote Homebrew in a weekend.
>That's assuming some ever expanding workload.
It's not like e.g. a company will start selling 10x of their product just because their productivity is 10x better due to AI. So it's not like their workload with increase 10x to match.
This means a more or less same-ish workload. And if this takes them, say, X devs today (without AI), they could perhaps do it with 1/5th or 1/10th the devs plus AI tomorrow.
No need to "assign more workers to the sector". Sure, some sectors with big expansion potential might grow their business too due to automation, but for most businesses it will just be increased productivity...
>Yeah, no. Firing everyone because AI can do iptables now is the sort of pipe dream you sell to a crazy one-man startup, not a pre-established business looking to save money
Notice how nobody said anything about "firing everyone"? Notice how I explicitly said "if this takes them, say, X devs today (without AI), they could perhaps do it with 1/5th or 1/10th the devs plus AI tomorrow"?
I think ChatGPT would do better in understanding my comment. In fact let's try it:
Q: Assume you read this comment:
"It's not like a company will start selling 10x of their product just because
their productivity is 10x better due to AI. So it's not like their workload
with increase 10x to match. This means a more or less same-ish workload. And
if this takes them, say, X devs today (without AI), they could perhaps do it
with 1/5th or 1/10th the number of devs plus AI tomorrow".
Does the above comment imply the company is going to fire all of its
employees?
A: No, the comment does not necessarily imply that the company is going to
fire all of its employees. The comment does not make any specific claims about
firing employees, but rather suggests that the company may be able to achieve
the same results with fewer employees by leveraging AI technology.
>If you legitimately believe that people are paid for their "single threaded" potential to write software, what kind of business do you run?
First of all, there are millions of devs "paid for their 'single threaded' potential to write software". It's called code monkeys. Many roles don't need anything more than that: take specifications, prepared by someone else, and churn out this or that part of the code.
Second, not sure why developers having more than "'single threaded' potential to write code" would change things. LLM AI doesn't have single threaded potential in writing software alone either.
Third, of course you've missed the whole argument, which isn't that AI will write software alone. It is that the extra coding speed as helped by AI will means less developers will be needed for the same workload. And that in many cases workloads wont just expand as if there's some cosmic contract to always keep number of employed developers more or less the same.
>as ridiculous as the self-proclaimed 10x devs that could lay off entire software teams because they wrote Homebrew in a weekend
I've seen at least three different 10x developers do what "entire software teams" couldn't do in a year. And absolutely having 2 of those in our company meant we could do with hiring way less developers than we'd need otherwise. In areas where they weren't interested in, like UI or APIs, we had to get more people.
There is no AI system today that can take high stakes decisions without human supervision. Not even invoice data extraction bots unless you want it to send 1,000,000 dollars from your account every now and then, instead of 1,000.
>There is no AI system today that can take high stakes decisions without human supervision.
I covered this exact point directly on the comment that you're answering it: "You can have 1 person do the hand holding (...) [spend] a hour to get the AI to write it with appropriate prompts, and then a day or for the human to clean it up and fix any gaps..."
No, you don't understand. There is no way to be sure your model won't bankrupt you by mistake if you don't verify everything it does, even with the initial prompt and checking. You can't let it run unsupervised for anything important. Verification takes at least half the time compared with doing it without AI help, not much speedup there.
I am currently working on a schema matching task, just mapping fields from one schema to another, semantically. If you sample 5 responses from the model, only 70% of the time they are all in agreement. Many times it contradicts its own predictions. And this is a simple task. There is task intent ambiguity, input ambiguity and model ambiguity in there. It is weaker for matching fields in other languages.
That's why I think AI, as wonderful and surprising as it is, can't do any high stakes task on its own. It is just a starting point that gets you closer to the solution from the first step, but not a task solver. It needs validation systems and feedback to improve past this stage, and that usually means human in the loop, rarely we can automate validation on top of AI.
u have to start from earlier with jumping in between likely not gonna get, open there dev chat already 50 people for 4 position 8 will be mentor. They not gonna prefer outsider, from december stick around a lot then have best proposal likely gonna get.
because normal people r dumb and they will always think there poor hardware is not enough to run bloated software slows so buy more whole android phone market is like this.
